Is the idea that each person should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, unless they cause harm to others, a bad thing?

The thread is mostly dead, so I suppose I can be a little bit serious. Ideals are not necessarily bad in their own right. The problem with any political (or religious, or economic, or etc.) ideal arises from the fact that it is based on a desire for the world to be other than it is. The libertarian ideal is predicated on the belief (first) that all humans are equally capable of taking care of their own interests, (second,) that all humans are capable of determining when they are causing harm to others (and third), that all humans are sufficiently compassionate that they would refrain from causing harm if they knew about the consequences of their actions.

The first assumption is contradicted by the evidence. There are people who are simply not intellectually or physically capable of providing for themselves. People with physical handicaps or severe injuries cannot "go it alone" and expect to survive. The third assumption is contradicted by the existence of sociopaths. While rare, they do exist, and the libertarian ideal that people would avoid harming others by choice simply can't account for them.

The second assumption is the big one. In a simple agrarian or hunter/gatherer society, an individual's actions typically have only local consequences, so we see the effects of our actions on our neighbors. In a society like that, individuals might have a close enough approximation to "perfect knowledge" of the consequences of their actions to actually be able to make the right decision. However, in an industrialized economy, that degree of knowledge is simply not possible.

An example I used last time the subject came up is the effects of logging on salmon fisheries. Here in the Pacific Northwest, salmon spawn in small rivers, far inland ...

ZLOK STILL SAY GOVERNMENT F*CKED UP. PENAL SYSTEM VIOLATE LIBERTY. NEEDS RESOLUTION. SOMEONE MUST CLIMB BIG NETS AND SAY SOMETHING. I DONT WANT TO. MAYBE HAVE TO. IT IN ZLOKS GENERAL INTEREST. ZLOK BREAK NO LAW EXCEPT WHO ZLOK AM. TREEFORE, GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ZLOKS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. ZLOK NO LIKE. THAT NOT WHAT JUSTICE SUPPOSED BE. IT WRONG. NEEDS TO PUT ARROW ON TARGET. PUT CAVEMEN WHO CAUSE ACTUAL ABUSE IN CAVE WITH TINY BARS. IF CAVEMEN NO LOVE OTHER CAVEMAN LOVE ANIMALS INSTEAD NO HURT NO NEGLECT THEN GOVERNMENT NO HURT CAVEMEN. CAVEMEN WHO HURT WHO NEGLECT WHO ABUSE, PUT IN CAVE WITH TINY BARS. IS ZLOCK WRONG?

m00:1) 5) 7) Rand Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. I agree with ComaLite J's definition, and Rand Paul's policies contradict this.

Thanks!

cybrwzrd:I agree with you, except I do not think that objectivism is a pro corporatism philosophy. It has been hijacked tho by those type of people - Greenspan included.

http://youtu.be/CeTfUot51io?t=4m6s

This is a video of Rand clearly dismissing corporatism and cronyism.

I got attacked in this thread for saying that I agree with certain aspects of objectivism, even though I said that I am not an objectivist now, so I am sure I will be attacked for this as well.

Look, I am for universal health care and a strong social safety net. I don't think the strong have the right to trample the rights of the weak.

Most libertarians hate those things- but that is because they do not believe in equality. I believe in limited government still. So do most progressives. Government is not a tool for the strong to use to oppress the weak. It is a tool to make the weak equal to the strong. Equality does not exist without limiting the power of the majority or the powerful.

I'll check that video out when I get a chance. Thanks!

Ishkur:COMALite J: the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights!

No one has any Rights.

Rights do not exist. You can only do things so long as others let you.

The Declaration of Independence calls the existence of the Inherent ("endowed by their Creator") and Inalienable Rights of Personhood a "self-evident" "Truth." A self-evident truth is also known as an axiom. In any system of logic, there must be one or more axioms which are assumed to be true without proof, as self-evident truths, to be used as starting premises in subsequent chains or logical reasoning. The axioms themselves form the foundation of the system of logic.

I would hold that to be an American citizen and participate in its society and government, one should accept its axioms, otherwise one is rejecting the whole basis, the foundation, of the very existence of this nation, and may truly be happier elsewhere in a nation based on different axioms that one can accept.

Indeed, the "inherent and inalienable" part is part and parcel of the very definition of the term "Rights" as understood by Jefferson and other Founders and Framers. If someone gives them to you or allows you to exercise certain liberties, then they aren't Rights at all. They're Powers or Privileges. Persons and governments can have Powers and privileges (Tenth Amendment), but only Persons have, or can have, Rights (Ninth Amendment).